School district business is our expertise. With more than 30 attorneys dedicated to advising public agencies on the complex array of issues encountered while conducting their operations, Lozano Smith is prepared to share our knowledge gained in preparing thousands of contracts and helping school districts build hundreds of facilities. The business of schools is vast - from daily vendor contracts, to budgeting and revenue generation, our attorneys routinely advise on and advocate for school districts. Equally, Lozano Smith provides counsel and support on all aspects of real property and facilities issues. When a novel issue presents itself, we work closely with our clients to develop creative, efficient and effective solutions. And, if a contract is challenged or a construction project goes awry, our litigation team has a proven track record of success.
Lozano Smith Facilities and Business Practice Group specializes in:
- Budgeting Issues, Funding Disputes & Audit Appeals
- Procurement of Supplies and Services
- Contract Development and Review
- Energy Issues
- Public Finance including Bond Counsel Services
- Technology Procurement and Contracting
- Bidding, Bid Challenges and Alternative Project Delivery
- Selecting and Contracting with Construction Professionals
- Construction Contract Development and Administration
- Prevailing Wage and Project Labor Agreements
- Construction Litigation
- California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Compliance
- Developer Fees and School Facilities Mitigation
- Prop. 39 Procurement and Contracting
- Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
- State Funding and the School Facilities Program
- Joint Facilities Use
- Land Acquisition - Purchase and Exchange
- Due Diligence Issues including CDE Approval and Resolution of Title Exceptions
- Eminent Domain
- Land Use and Zoning Issues
- Leases, Easements and Other Property Interests
- Charter School Facilities and Prop. 39 Offers
- Surplus Property Disposition
July 2018 Number 30 As previously reported, effective January 1, 2018, Assembly Bill (AB) 195 requires summary statements for all local ballot measures that impose or raise a tax to include the amount of money the tax will raise annually and the rate and duration of the tax to be levied. (See 2017 Client News Brief No. 82.) In addition to eating into the 75-word limit for summary statements, the new law poses compliance challenges specific to general obligation bonds, which are subject...
June 2018 Number 26 New requirements for using federal funds become effective this coming fiscal year. The requirements apply to non-federal entities such as school districts, institutions of higher learning, and state and local governments. In order to comply with the new rules, non-federal entities seeking federal funds may need to revise their board policies and administrative regulations, contract documents, and other internal procedures by the beginning of their 2018-2019 fiscal y...
June 2018 Number 21 A school district consultant's services agreements may be void under Government Code section 1090, even though the consultant is not an officer or employee of the school district. Section 1090 prohibits conflicts of interest in the making of public contracts. InStrategic Concepts, LLC v. Beverly Hills Unified School District, the court ruled that a consultant's status as an independent contractor rather than an employee did not exempt her from the law's reach. The tria...
June 2018 Number 23 Many school districts throughout the state have recently received one or more California Public Records Act (CPRA) requests from the California Taxpayers Action Network (CalTAN) and the Carlin Law Group regarding lease-leaseback (LLB) transactions. CalTAN and the Carlin Law Group filed multiple lawsuits against school districts in the past regarding lease-leaseback practices, and this CPRA request may be a precursor to future litigation. The first of the recent CPRA...
Court Confirms That Calculation of Level 1 Developer Fees for Apartment Buildings Includes Interior Common Areas
April 2018 Number 16 A California court has confirmed that school districts are authorized to assess Level 1 developer fees against interior common areas of apartment buildings, including hallways and walkways. School districts have received pushback from developers regarding whether "assessable space" includes interior common areas. With its decision in 1901 First Street Owner, LLC v. Tustin Unified School District, the court has provided districts with legal authority for imposing fe...
February 2018 Number 5 As a result of California's affordable housing crisis, school districts face challenges in retaining teachers and school district employees, particularly in regions with high housing costs. California lawmakers sought to address the problem by proposing Assembly Bill (AB) 1157 and AB 45 to make it easier for districts to promote housing development for district employees, though Governor Jerry Brown vetoed the latter bill. AB 1157 was part of a package of 15 hous...
February 2018 Number 3 The State Allocation Board (SAB) has increased the amount of "Level 1" developer fees that school districts are authorized to collect to $3.79 per square foot of residential development and $0.61 per square foot of commercial development. The increase takes effect immediately, and may now be implemented by school districts through local action. The new rates, which the SAB approved on January 24, 2018, represent an 8.78 percent increase over the maximum amounts a...
|Lozano Smith was part of the team representing Los Angeles Unified School District in Williams v. State of California, a massive statewide class action involving alleged conditions in public schools including alleged inequalities in school facilities, instructional materials and teachers, particularly at underperforming schools that were already the subject of various state and federal categorical programs.|
|Clovis Unified School District v. Chiang (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 794. Assisted eleven school districts with invalidating audits of several state mandated cost reimbursement claims worth more than $30 million, based upon the use of invalid, underground auditing documentation rule by the State Controller’s Office. The firm was later able to receive an award of $240,000 from the superior court for fees and costs incurred in the litigation efforts, largely offsetting the school districts’ legal costs in the case.|
|Oak Grove Elementary School District v. George W. Putris, as Tax Collector for the County of Santa Clara, Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 114CV261473. Represented the District in a complex matter related to a parcel tax authorized by the District's Board and approved by voters in 1991. The District returned to the voters every four years to re-obtain approval to increase the appropriations limit to spend tax revenues, but uncertainty loomed in 2014 regarding whether the District still had authority to collect taxes in 2014 after not needing to increase the annual appropriations limit that same year. The County Tax Collector was unclear whether it still had the authority to collect the taxes, therefore leading to Lozano Smith filing a lawsuit on behalf of the District seeking a peremptory writ of mandate commanding the County Tax Collector to collect parcel taxes. The lawsuit resulted in a stipulated judgment issuing a peremptory writ of mandate commanding the Tax Collector to collect the parcel tax.|
|Morgan Hill Unified School District v. Minter & Fahy Construction Company, Inc. et al., Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case No. CV772368 (2002-2003). As part of a three week jury trial, successfully represented the school district against contractor and pipe manufacturer arising from underground fuel storage tank that leaked, and obtained judgment in excess of $2 million including interest and attorney’s fees. *Case handled by a current Lozano Smith attorney prior to their employment at Lozano Smith.|
|Modtech Holdings v. Pajaro Valley Unified School District. On two separate elementary school projects totaling $4 million, the District withheld substantial sums to cover damages caused the contractor. One project under the control of the contractor had a fire, with the contractor refusing to compensate the District. The other project suffered construction deficiencies in the stucco and roof. The contractor sued for improper withholding and the District cross-complained for additional damages, resulting in a $1 million dispute. After discovery and expert investigation revealed additional claims for the District, the case resolved very favorably for the District a few months short of trial.|
|R. Baker, Inc. v. Coast Unified School District. A school district was subject to multi-million dollar design, delay and defect claims related to construction of a new elementary school located in the Coastal Zone. The project also suffered from an inadequate Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), thus causing the school district to be fined in excess of $300,000. The litigation settled favorably for the District at mediation.|
|Mountain Cascade v. Santa Clara Valley Water District. The District entered a contract with the plaintiff to install a recycled water pipeline. As part of the original plans and specifications, the contract also called for the additional installation of fiber optic conduits. However, after award the District deleted the fiber optic work from the project since the bid on that line item was excessive. The District then added back a small portion of the fiber optic work that was within the budget. The contractor sued the District for lost profits based on the deleted work. Our attorney won summary judgment for the District based on the broad right to add and delete work, and successfully defended the decision on appeal.|
|Pajaro Valley USD v. Westchester Surplus Lines Insurance Co., et al. Due to a combination of construction and architectural roof design defects, a new district school was infected with mold throughout its buildings. Lozano Smith attorneys successfully represented the school district in recovering in excess of $3 million for remedial efforts and new construction from litigation prosecuted against the general contractor, architect, and insurer on the district insurance risk policy.|
|Teichert Construction v. City of Stockton, et al. During a $15 million dual grade separation project, the contractor and one of its subcontractors submitted claims of more than $3 million based on delay. Despite many issues of delay caused by utilities and railroad companies, the case settled favorably at pre-discovery mediation for under $1 million despite a significant number of delay days for which the City had to take responsibility.|
|Anderson Union High School District v. Shasta Secondary Home School (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 262. Lozano Smith successfully argued, in a case of first impression, that the geographic and site limitations of the Charter Schools Act (Ed. Code, § 47600 et seq.) are applicable to all charter schools, including “nonclassroom-based” programs.|